history to watch him do that. last time he's going to be a candidate. i'm going to be looking to see how well he holds romney to his previous statements. romney's going to want to run away from those statements and do a switch a roo. i'm going to watch and see if this president can hold him to his previous statements which have been very bellicose. >> it is remarkable how impactful these debates have been. both in the primary season and also in this presidential season. >> it changed the race completely after the first debate. and at the second debate the president sort of stopped the bleeding for himself but the first debate was a game changer. >> president obama was heading not only for victory but potentially a blowout. i think he's lost that opportunity for blowout now. he still could get a victory. >> that support must have been soft if it was able to change. >> part of it is a lacking of intensity on the republican side. the president brought democrats back in the second debate. this is the tiebreaker, if you will. then we get a two-week chess

game. where do you spend your tv money, where do you pull back, it is crunch time. >> the reason all of this is because it is a divided nation. you saw the most recent poll which is ironically 47% for each candidate. >> wolf blitzer. >> will be interested to see if either of these two candidates has any factual errors. i'm going to be listening very, very closely. some of these foreign policy issues are very nuanced, very complex and one misstatement could cause some international ramifications. going to be listening very carefully. bob schieffer is already seated at the table. within a few second he will introduce both of these candidates. they will come in. he'll read the rules, the ground rules that were so carefully negotiated between these two campaigns, and the presidential debate commission. everything, everything, has been negotiated. here's bob schieffer. good evening from the campus of lynn university here in boca raton, florida.

this is the fourth, and last, debate of the 2012 campaign brought to you by the commission on presidential debates. this one's on foreign policy. i'm bob schieffer of cbs news. the question are mine and i have not shared them with the candidates or their aides. the audience has taken a vow of silence, no applause, no reaction of any kind, except right now when we welcome president barack obama and governor mitt romney.

gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. they've asked me to divide the evening into segments. i'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. you will each have two minutes to respond, and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment. tonight's debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that president kennedy told the world that the soviet union had installed nuclear missiles in cuba. perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. and it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. so let's begin. the first segment is the challenge of a changing middle east and the new face of terrorism. i'm going to put this into two segments so you'll have two topic questions within this one segment on the subject.

the first question -- and it concerns libya, the controversy over what happened there continues. four americans are dead, including an american ambassador. questions remain of what happened, what caused it. was it spontaneous. was it an intelligence failure. was it a policy failure. was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened. governor romney, you said this was an example of an american policy in the middle east that is unraveling before our very eyes. i'd like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. governor romney, you won the toss, you go first. >> thank you, bob. and thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. thank you to lynn university for welcoming us here and mr. president, it is good to be with you again. we were together at a humorous event a little bit earlier. it is nice to maybe be funny this time, not on purpose. we'll see what happens. this is obviously an area of great concern to the entire

world and to america in particular which is to see a complete change in the structure and the environment in the middle east. with the arab spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women and in public life and in the economic life in the middle east. but instead we've seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events. of course we see in syria, 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. we see in libya an attack apparently by i think we know now by terrorists of some kind against our people there, four people dead. our hearts and minds go to them. mali has been taken over, the northern part of mali, by al qaeda-type individuals. we have in egypt a muslim brotherhood president. what we're seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region.

of course the greatest threat of all is iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. we're going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president's done. i congratulate him on taking out osama bin laden and going after the leadership in al qaeda. but we can't kill our way out of this mess. we're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of islam and other parts of the world reject this radical violent extremism which is certainly not on the run. it is certainly not hiding. this is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to america, long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism. >> mr. president. >> well, my first job as commander in chief, bob, is to keep the american people safe. and that's what we've done over the last four years. we ended the war in iraq.

refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. and as a consequence, al qaeda's core leadership has been decimated. in addition, we're now able to transition out of afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that afghans take responsibility for their own security. and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. now, with respect to libya, as i indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, i immediately made sure that number one, we did everything we could to secure those americans who were still in harm's way. number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened. and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed americans an we would bring them to justice. that's exactly what we're going to do. but i think it is important to step back and think about what happened in libya. keep in mind that i and

americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to, without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in iraq, liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years. got rid of a despot who had killed americans, and as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of live yans aftbyans events in benghazi marching and saying america is our friend, we stand with them. now that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. and governor romney, i'm glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al qaeda. but i have to tell you that, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map. and is not designed to keep americans safe or to bill on the opportunities that exist in the middle east.

>> well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, to go after the bad guys, do our best to interrupt them, kill them, to take them out of the picture. but my strategy is broader than that. that's important, of course. but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a pathway to get the muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. we don't want another iraq. we don't want another afghanistan. that's not the right course for us. the right course for us is to make sure we go after the people who are leaders of these various anti-american groups and these jihadists, but also help the muslim world. how do we do that? the group of arab scholars came together, organized by the u.n., to look at how we can help the world reject these terrorists. the answer they came up with is this. one more economic development. we should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we push back and give them more economic development. number two, better education. number three, gender equality.

number four, the rule of law. we have to help these nations create civil societies. but what's been happening over the last couple of years is as we've watched this timult in the middle east, this riled tide of chaos, you see al qaeda rushing in, other jihadist groups rushing in and they're throughout many nations in the middle east. it is wonderful that libya seems to be making some progress despite this terrible tragedy. next door we egypt, 80 million population. we want to make sure that we're seeing progress throughout the middle east with mali now having north mali taken over by al qaeda, with syria having assad continuing to kill -- murder his own people. this is a region in tumult. iran on the path to a nuclear weapon -- >> we'll get to that. let's give the president a chance. >> governor romney, i'm glad that you recognize that al qaeda is a threat. because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat

facing america, you said russia. not al qaeda. you said russia. in the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the cold war's been over for 20 years. but governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s. you say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened. in iraq. but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in iraq right now. and the challenge we have -- i know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. you said we should have gone into iraq despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. you said that we should still have troops in iraq to this day. you indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with

russia despite the fact that 71 senators, democrats and republicans, voted for it. you've said that first we should not have a timeline in afghanistan, then you said we should. now you say maybe, or depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing and sending mixed messages to both our troops and our allies. so what we need to do with respect to the middle east is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. and, unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for american strength or keeping america safe over the -- >> i'm going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond. >> well, of course, i don't concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that i've said. they don't happen to be accurate. but i can say this. that we're talking about the middle east and how to help the middle east reject the kind of

terrorism we're seeing and the rising tide of tumult and confusion and attacking me is not an agenda. attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the middle east and take advantage of the opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. but i'll respond to a couple things you mentioned. first of all, russia i indicated is a geopolitical foe. not -- excuse me. it is a geopolitical foe. i said in the same paragraph, i said, "and iran is the greatest national security threat we face." russia does continue to battle us in the u.n., time and time again. i have clear eyes on this. i'm not going to wear rose colored glass wes when it comeso russia or mr. putin. with regards to iraq, you and i agreed that there should have about ban status of forces agreement. >> that's not true. >> you didn't want a status of forces agreement? >> no. what i would not have done is left 10,000 troops in iraq that

would tie us down. that certainly would not help us in the middle east. >> i'm sorry, you actually -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement and i concurred in that and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. that was something i concurred with. that was your posture, that was my posture as well. >> governor, this is just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in iraq. >> sorry, that's not -- >> you indicated that in a major speech. >> i indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement at the end of the conflict -- >> governor, here's one thing i've learned as commander in chief. you've got to be clear. both to our allies and our enemies about where you stand and what you mean. you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in iraq. that is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges in

the middle east. now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. and so what i've done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts. number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in israel's security because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region. number three, we do have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities an women because these countries can't develop unless all the population -- not just half of it -- is developing. number four, we do have to develop their economic capabilities. number five -- the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do nation building in these regions. part of american leadership is making sure that we're doing nation building here at home. that will help us maintain the kind of american leadership that we need. >> let me interject the second

topic question in this segment about the middle east and so on. and that is, you both mentioned -- alluded to this, and that is syria. war in syria has now spilled over into lebanon. we have more than 100 people that were killed there in a bomb. there were demonstrations. there are eight people dead. mr. president, it's been more than a year since you told assad he had to go. since then 30,000 syrians have died. we've had 300,000 refugees. the war goes on. he's still there. should we re-assess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there, or is that even possible? you go first, sir. >> what we've done is organize the international community saying assad has to go. we've mobilized sanctions against that government. we have made sure that they are isolated. we have provided humanitarian assistance and we are helping the opposition organize.

we're particularly interested in making sure we're mobilizing the moderate forces inside of syria. but ultimately, syrians are going to have to determine their own future. so everything we're doing we're doing in consultation with our partners in the region including israel which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in syria, coordinating with turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. now, what we're seeing taking place in syria is heartbreaking. and that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. but, we also have to recognize that for us to get more entangled militarily in syria is a serious step. and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping, that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or our allies in the region. and i am confident that assad's days are numbered. but what we can't do is to

simply suggest that, as governor romney at times has suggested, that giving lev weapons, for example, to the syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term. >> governor? >> well, let's talk about what's happening in syria and how important it is. first of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. secondly, syria is an opportunity for us, because syria plays an important role in the middle east, particularly right now. syria is iran's only ally in the arab world. it's their route to the sea. it's the route for them to arm hezbollah in lebanon which threatens of course our ally, israel. and so seeing syria remove assad is a very high priority for us. number two, seeing a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. and finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. we don't want to get drawn in to a military conflict. so the right course for us is working through our partners and with our own resources to

identify responsible parties within syria, organize them, bring them together in a form of -- if not government, a form of council that can take the lead in syria and then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. we do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the wrong hands. those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. we need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies, and particularly with israel. but the saudis and the turks and qataris are all very willing to work with us. we need a very effective leadership in syria making sure that the insurgents there are armed and that the insurgents that become armed are people who will be the responsible parties. recognize, i believe that assad must go. i believe he will go. but i believe we want to make sure that we have the relationships, a friendship with the people that take his place such that in the years to come we see syria as a friend and

syria as a responsible party in the middle east. this is a critical opportunity for america and what i'm afraid of is that we've watched over the past year or so, first the president saying we'll let the u.n. deal with it and assad -- excuse me, kofi annan came in and said we'll have a cease-fire. that didn't work. then looked to the russians saying see if you can do something. we should be playing the leadership role there, not on the ground with military. >> we are playing a leadership role. we organize the friends of syria. we are mobilizing humanitarian support and support for the opposition. and we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term. but going back to libya -- there is an example of how we make choices. when we went in to libya, and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there, because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had thoepd

organi helped to organize, we had to make sure moammar gadhafi couldn't stay there. to the governor's credit, he supported the coalition that we organized. but whether it came time to making sure gadhafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle. imagine if we had pulled out at that point. moammar gadhafi had more american blood on his hands than any individual other than osama bin laden. and so we were going to make sure that we finished the job. that's part of the reason why the libyans stand with us. but we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with, and we have to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to syria. that's exactly what we're doing. >> governor, can i just ask you,

would you go beyond what the administration would do, like for example, would you put in no-fly zones over syria? >> i don't want to have our military involved in syria. i don't think there is necessity to put our military in syria at this stage. i don't anticipate that in the future. as i indicated, our objectives are to replace assad and to have in place a new government which is friendly to us, a responsible government, if possible, and i want to make sure they get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but also to remove assad. but i do not want to see a military involve. on the part of our troops. this isn't going to be necessary. we have with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups. but look, this has been going on for a year. there is a time -- this should have been a time for american leadership. we should have taken a leading role, not militarily but a leading role organizationally, governmentally, to bring together the parties there to find responsible parties. as you hear from intelligence

sources even today, the insurgents are highly disparate. they haven't come together. they haven't formed a unity group, a council of some kind. that needs to happen. america can help that happen and we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role which getting rid of assad. >> can we get a quick response, mr. president? >> i'll be very quick. what you just heard governor romney said is -- he doesn't have different ideas and that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate syrian leadership and an effective transition so that we get assad out. that's the kind of leadership we've shown. that's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show. >> may i ask you, you know, during the egyptian turmoil, there came a point when you said it was time for president mubarak to go. >> right. >> some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited a while on that.

do you have any regrets about that? >> no, i don't. because i think that america has to stand with democracy. the notion that we would have tanks run over those young people who were in tahrir square, that's not the kind of american leadership that john f. kennedy talked about 50 years ago. but what i've also said is that now that you have a democratically elected government in egypt, they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities. we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that. to recognize the rights of women which is critical throughout the region. these countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need. they have to abide by their treaty with israel. that's a red line for us. because not only is israel's security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels. they have to make sure that they're cooperating with us when it comes to counterterrorism and we will help them with respect

to developing their own economy, because ultimately, what's going to make the egyptian revolution successful for the people of egypt, but also for the world, is if those young people who gathered there are seeing opportunities. their aspirations are similar to young people's here. they want jobs. they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. they want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future. and so one of the things that we've been doing is, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these egyptians to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that's non-corrupt, that's transparent, but what is also important for us to understand is that for america to be successful in this region, there are some things that we're going to have to do here at home as well. one of the challenges over the lft decade is we hadone experim

and we've neglected developing our own education system and it is hard to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need do. >> governor romney, i want to hear your response to that but i would just asking with you would you have stuck with mubarak? >> no. i believe as the president indicated. and said at the time that i supported his action there. i felt that -- i wish we'd have had a better vision of the future. i wish that look backality the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that that we'd have recognized there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friend in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way that it did. once it exploded i felt the same as the president did which is these freedom voices and the streets of egypt where the people who were speaking of our principles and the president

mubarak had done things which were unimaginable and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support. let me step back and talk about what i think our mission has to be in the middle east and even more broadly. because our purpose is to make sure the world is peaceful. we want a peaceful planet. we want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they're going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war. that's our purpose. mantel of leadership for promoting the principles of peace has fallen in america. for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong. and that begins with a strong economy here at home. unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. when the president of iraq -- excuse me, of iran, ahmadinejad, says that our debt makes us not a great country, that's a frightening thing. former chief -- joint chiefs of staff said that -- admiral mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat

we face. we have weakened our economy. we need a strong economy. we need to have as well a strong military. our military is second to none in the world. blessed with terrific soldiers, extraordinary technology and intelligence. but the idea after trillion dollar in cuts to the budget of the military would change that. we need strong allies. our association and connection with our allies is essential to america's strength. we're the great nation that has allies. 42 allies and friends around the world. finally we have to stand by our principles. if we're strong in each of those things, american influence will grow. but unfortunately, in nowhere in the world is america's influence greater today than it was four years ago. >> all right. >> that's because -- >> perfect, you're going to get a chance to respond to that because that's a perfect segue into our next segment, and that is what is america's role in the world. and that is the question. what do each of you see as our role in the world and i believe

governor romney, it is your turn to go first. >> well, i absolutely believe that america has a responsibility and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that make the world more peaceful. and those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections, because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. they don't vote for war. so we want to promote those principles around the world. we recognize that there are places of conflict in the world. we want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. but in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world, america must be strong. america must lead. and for that to happen, we have to strengthen our economy here at home. you can't have 23 million people struggling to get a job. you can't have an economy that over the last three years keeps slowing down its growth rate. you can't have kids coming out of college, half of whom can't

find a job today. or a job that's commensurate with their college degree. we have to get our economy going. and our military. we've got to strengthen our military long term. we don't know what the world is going to throw at us down the road. we make decisions today in the military that will confront challenges we can't imagine. in the 2000 debates, there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. and a year later 9/11 happened. so we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty and that means a strong military. i will not cut our military budget. we have to also stand by our allies. i think the tension that existed between israel and the united states was very unfortunate. i think also pulling our missile defense program out of poland in the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of if you will, disrupting the relationship in some ways that existed between us. then of course, with regards to standing for our principles, when the students took to the streets in tehran and the people there protested, the green revolution occurred for.

for the president to be silent i thought was an enormous mistake. we have to stand for our principles, stand for our allies, stand for a stronger military and stand for a stronger economy. >> mr. president. >> america remains the one indispensable nation. and the world needs a strong america and it is stronger now than when i came into office. because we ended the war in iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat but also beginning a transition process in afghanistan. it also allowed us to refocus on alliances and relationships that had been neglected for a decade. governor romney, our alliances have never been stronger. in asia, in europe, in africa, with israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the iranian threat. but what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding america.

that's what my plan does. making sure that we're bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we're creating jobs here as we've done with the auto industry. not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas. making sure that we've got the best education system in the world. including retraining or workers for the jobs of tomorrow. doing everything we can to control our own energy. we've cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades. because we've developed oil and natural gas but we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. that's the kind of leadership that we need to show. and we've got to make sure that we reduce our deficit. unfortunately, governor romney's plan doesn't do it. we've got to do it in a responsible way by cutting out spending we don't need but also by asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. that way we can invest in research and technology that's always kept us on the cutting edge. now governor romney has taken a

different approach throughout this campaign. now both at home and abroad, he has proposed wrong and reckless policies. he's praised george bush as a good economic steward and dick cheney as somebody who shows great wisdom and judgment, and taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century. >> governor romney, wrong and reckless policies. >> i've got a policy for the future, an agenda for the future. when it comes to our economy here at home, i know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay. what we've seen over the last four years is something i don't want to see over the next four years. the president said by now we'd be at 5.4% unemployment. we're 9 million jobs short of that. i will get america working again and see rising take home pay again and i'll do it with five simple steps. number one, we are going to have north american energy independence. we're going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal,

gas, nuclear and our renewables. number two, we're going to increase our trade. trade grows about 12% per year. doubles about every five or so years. we can do better than that, particularly in latin america. the opportunities for us in latin america, we have just not taken advantage of fully. matter of fact, latin america's economy is almost as big as the economy of china. we're all focused on china. latin america is a huge opportunity for us. time zone, language opportunities. number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our workers. and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first and the teachers unions going to have to go behind. then we have to get to a balanced budget. we can't expect entrepreneurs and businesses large and small to take their life savings or their company's money and invest in america if they think we're headed to the road to greece. that's where we're going right now unless we finally get off the spending and borrowing binge. i'll get us on track to a balanced budget.

and finally, number five, we've got to champion small business. small business is where jobs come from. two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. new business formation is down to the lowest level in 30 years under this admission. i want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take-home pay. >> well let's talk about what we need to compete. first of all, governor romney talks about maul businesses. governor, when you were in massachusetts, small businesses development ranked about 48th, i think out of 50 states in massachusetts because the policies that you are promoting actually don't help small businesses and the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top. they include you and me. that's not the kind of small business promotion we need. but let's take an example that we know is going to make a difference in the 21st century and that's our education policy. we didn't have a lot of chance to talk about this in the last debate. under my leadership, what we've done is reformed education, working with governors, 46

states, we've seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time. and they're starting to finally make progress. and what i now want to do stoo hi is to hire more teachers especially in math and science. we know we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science and those teachers can make a difference. governor romney, when you were asked by teachers whether or not this would help the economy grow, you said this isn't going to help the economy grow. when you were asked about reduced class sizes, you said class sizes don't make a difference. but i tell you, if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference. and if we've got math teachers who are able to provide the kind of support that they need for our kid, that's what's going to determine whether or not the new businesses are created here. companies are going to locate here depending on whether we've got the most highly skilled workforce and the kinds of budget proposals that you've put forward, when we don't ask either you or me to pay a dime more in terms of reducing the

deficit but instead we slash support for education, that's undermining our long term competitiveness. that is not good for america's position in the world. and the world notices. >> let me get back to foreign policy. i can just get back -- >> i need to speak a moment, bob, just about education. >> okay. >> i'm so proud of the state that i had the chance to be governor of. we have every two years tests that look at how well our kids are doing. fourth-graders and eighth-graders are tested in english and math. while i was governor, our fourth-graders came out number one in all 50 states in english and also in math. fourth-graders, number one in english, and in math. first time the state had been number one in all four measures. how do we do that? republicans and democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom. that was what allowed us to become the number one state in the nation. >> but that was ten years before

you took office. then you cut education spending when you came in to office. >> the first -- >> and we kept our schools number one in the nation. they're still number one today and the principles that we put in place. we also gave kids not just a graduation example. to determine whether they were up to the skills needed to be able to competeut also if they graduated the top quarter of their class they got a four-year tuition-free ride at any massachusetts public institution of higher learning. >> that happened before you came into office. >> that was actually mine, mr. president. >> i want to try to shift it because we have heard some of this in the other debates. governor, you say you want a bigger military, you want a bigger navy. you don't want to cut defense spending. what i want to ask you, we're talking about financial problems in this country. where are you going to get the money? >> well, let's come back and talk about the military but all the way through. first of all, i'm going through from the very beginning. we're going to cut 5% of the discretionary budget excluding

military. >> can you do that without driving us deeper into debt? >> i'll be happy to have you take a look. come on our website. you can look to how we get to a balanced budget within eight to ten years by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. number one i'd get rid of is obama care. a number of things sound good but frankly, we can't afford them. that one doesn't sound good and it is not affordable. i get rid of that on day one. we take program after program that we don't absolutely have to have and we get rid of them. number two, we take some programs that we are going to keep like medicaid which is a program for the poor. take that health care program for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficient efficiently. as a governor, i thought please, give me this program. i can run this more efficiently than the federal government and states are proving it. states like arizona, rhode island have taken these medicaid dollars, have shown they can run

these programs more cost effectively. i want to do those two things. it gets to us a balanced budget within eight to ten years. but the military -- let's get back to the military though. >> that's what i'm trying to -- >> he should have answered the first question. look. governor romney's called for $5 trl of t trillion of tax cuts that he says he'll pay for by closing deductions. now the math doesn't work but he continues to claim he's going to do it. he then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military's not asking for. now keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that i've been in office. we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. china, russia, france, united kingdom, you name it. next ten. and what i did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that

we are safe. and that's the budget that we've put forward. but what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military's not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts, you say that you're going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions without naming what those loopholes and deductions are, and then somehow you're also going to deal with the deficit that we've already got. the math simply doesn't work. but when it comes to our military, what we have to think about is not just budgets. we've got to think about capabilities. we need to be thinking about cyber security. we need to be thinking about space. that's exactly what our budget does but it's driven by strategy. it's not driven by politics. it's not driven by members of congress and what they would like to see. it's driven by what are we going to need to keep american people safe. that's exactly what our budget does. and it also then allows us to

reduce our deficit, which is a significant national security concern. because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas. >> bob, i'm pleased that i've balanced budgets. i was in the world of business for 25 years. you didn't balance your budget, you went out of business. i went to the olympics that was out of balance and we got it on balance and made a success there. i had the chance to be governor of a state four years in a row, democrats and republicans came together to balance the budget. we cut taxes 19 times. balanced our budget. the president hasn't balanced a budget yet. i expect to have the opportunity to do so myself. i'm going to be able to balance the budget. let's talk about military spending. that's this. >> 30 seconds. >> our navy is -- excuse me, our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. the navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. we're now at under 285. we're head hadded down to the low 200s if we go through a

skwe sequestration. i want to make sure the navy has the ships that are required. we've changed for the first time since fdr -- since fdr we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight if two conflicts at once. now we're changing to one conflict. this is my view is the highest responsibility of the president of the united states which is to maintain the safety of the american people. and i will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars which is a combination of the budget cuts the president has as well as the sequestration cuts. that in my view is making our future less certain and less secure. >> bob, i just need to comment on this. first of all, the sequester is not something i've proposed. it is something congress has proposed. it will not happen. the budget we are talking about is not reducing our military spending. it is maintaining it. but i think governor romney may be hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you mentioned the navy, for

example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. well, govern he, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. we had these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. we have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. so the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting slips. it's what are our capabilities. so when i sit down with the secretary of the navy and the joint chiefs of staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. and that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're putting forward, because it just doesn't work. we visited the website quite a bit. and it still doesn't work. >> lot to cover. i'd like to move to the next segment. red lines, israel and iran.

would either of you -- you'll have two minutes. and president obama, you have the first go at this one. would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on israel is an attack on the united states? which of course is the same promise that we give to our close allies like japan. and if you made such a declaration, would not that deter iran? it certainly deterred the soviet union for a long, long time when we made that promise to our allies. mr. president? >> first of all, israel is a true friend. it is our greatest ally in the region. and if israel is attacked, america will stand with israel. i've made that clear throughout my presidency. >> so you're saying we've already made that declaration. >> i will stand with israel if they are attacked. this is the reason why working with israel, we have created the strongest military and

intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. in fact, this week we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with israel in history, this very week. but, to the issue of iran, as long as i'm president of the united states, iran will not get a nuclear weapon. i made that clear when i came into office. we then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against iran in history. and it is crippling their economy. their currency has dropped 80%. their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with iraq 20 years ago. so their economy is in a shambles. the reason we did this is because a nuclear iran is a threat to our national security, and it is a threat to drlisrael national security. we can't afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and for them to be able to provide nuclear

technology to non-state actors, that's unacceptable. and they have said they want to see israel wiped off the map. so the work that we've done with respect to sanctions now offers iran a choice. they can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program, or they will have to face a united world, and a united states president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table. the disagreement i have with governor romney is that during the course of this campaign he's often talked as if we should take premature military action. i think that would be a mistake, because when i've sent young men and women into harm's way, i always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort. >> two minutes. >> well, first of all, i want. to underscore the same point the president made which is that if imanticipate president of the united states, when i'm president of the united states, we will stand with israel. and if israel is attacked, we

have their back. not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but military. that's number one. number two, with regards to iran and the threat of iran, there's no question but that a knnuclea capable iran is unacceptable to america. it presents a threat not only to our friends but ultimately a threat to us to have iran have nuclear weapons that could be used against us or threatening to us. it is also essential for us to understand what our mission is in iran. that is to dissuade iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means. and cripplining sanctions are something i called for five years ago. i laid out seven steps. crippling sanctions were number one. and they do work. are you seeing it right now in the economy. it is absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. i'd have put them in place earlier but it is good that we have them. two, something i'd add today, i would tighten those sanctions.

i would say ships that carry iranian oil can't come into our ports. i would imagine the eu would agree with us as well. not only ships couldn't, but companies who are moving their oil can't. people who are trading in their oil can't. i would tighten those sanctions further. secondly, i'd take on diplomatic isolation efforts. i'd make sure that ahmadinejad is indicted under the genocide convention. i would indict him for it. i would also make sure their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world, the same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of south africa. we need to increase pressure time and time again on iran because anything other than a solution to this which says -- which stops this nuclear folly of theirs is unacceptable to america. and of course, a military action is the last resort. it is something one would only consider if all of the other avenues have been tried to their full extent. >> let me ask both of you, as

you know, there are reports that are on in the united states as part of an international group have agreed in principle to talks about iran's nuclear program. what is the deal if there are t such talks. what is the deal you would accept? >> well, first of all, those are reports in the newspaper. they are not true. but our goal is to get iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program. and abide by the u.n. resolutions that have been in place, because they have the opportunity to re-enter the community of nations. and we would welcome that. there are people in iran who have the same aspirations as people all around the world for a better life. and we hope that their leadership takes the right decision. the deal we'll accept is to end their nuclear program. it's very straightforward. i'm glad governor romney agrees

with the steps we're taking. there have been times during the course of this campaign where it sounded like you thought that you do the same things we did, but you'd say them louder. somehow that would make a difference. it turns out the work involved in setting up these crippling sanctions is painstaking. it's meticulous, we started from the day we got into office. and the reason it was so important, and this is a testament to how we've restored american credibility and strength around the world, we had to make sure all the countries participated. even countries like russia and china. if it's justus imposing sanctions, we've had sanctions in place for a long time. it's because we got everyone to agree that iran is seeing so much pressure, we have to maintain that pressure. there is a deal to be had. they abide by the rules that have already been established. they convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program.

there are inspections that are very intrusive. over time, what they can do is regain credibility. in the meantime we're not going to let up on the pressure until we have the effort take place. the clock is ticking. we're not going to allow iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere. i've been very clear to them. because of the intelligence coordination we do, with a range of countries including israel. we get a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program. that clock is ticking. we're going to make sure if they do not meet the demands of the international community, we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have -- >> governor? >> i think from the beginning, one of the challenges we've had with iran, is they have looked

at the administration, and felt the administration was not as strong as it needed to be. they saw weakness where they expected to find american strength. the president in his campaign four years ago said he would meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year, with kim jong-il, castro and president ahmadinejad of iran. i think they looked and thought, that's an unusual honor to receive from the president of the united states, and then the president began what i called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the middle east and criticizing america. i think they looked at that and saw weakness. then when there were dissidents in the streets of tehran holding signs saying, is america with us, the president was silent. i think they noticed that as well. i think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and israel, that they noticed that as well, all of these things suggested i think to the

iranians that we can keep on pushing along here, we can keep talks going on, we're going to keep spinning centrifuges. now there's some 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium preparing to create a nuclear threat to the united states and the world. that's unacceptable for us, and it's acceptable for a president to show strength from the beginning, to make it clear what is acceptable and not acceptable. an iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. they must not develop nuclear capability. the way to make sure they understand that is to make sure they have the tightest sanctions possible. they need to be tightened. our diplomatic isolation needs to be tightened. we need to put the pressure on them as hard as we can. if we do that, we won't have to take the military action. >> nothing governor romney just said is true. starting with this notion of me

apologizing. this has been the biggest statement of the campaign. the governor has looked at every statement and said this is not true. when it comes to tightening sanctions, look, as i said before, we put in the toughest, most crippling sanctions ever. and the fact is, while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with the iranian oil sector. i'll let the american people decide, judge, who's going to be more effective and credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. with respect to our attitude, i was very clear about the 34urderrous activities that had taken place, and that was contrary to international law and everything that civilized people stand for. and so the strength that we have

shown in iran is shown by the fact that we've been able to mobilize the world. when i came into office, the world was divided. iran was resurgent. iran is at its weakest point economically, strategically, militarily in many years. we are going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure they don't get a nuclear weapon. that will be the case so long as i am president. >> we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. we should not have been able to waste these four years to the event they were able to spin a centrifuge. mr. president, the reason i call it an apology tour, you flew to the middle east, turkey, iraq. you skipped israel. our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations and by the way, they noticed that you skipped

israel. and in those nations and on arabic tv, you said america had been dismissive and dericive, you said on occasion america had dictated to other nations. mr. president, america has not dictated to other nations we have freed other nations from dictators. >> if we're going to talk about trips we've taken. when i was a candidate for office, the first trip i took was to visit our troops. and when i went to israel as a candidate, i didn't take donors, i didn't attempt fund-raisers, i went to the holocaust museum there, to remind myself the nature of evil, and why our bond with israel will be unbreakable. and then i went down to the border towns of staroke which had experienced missiles raining down from hamas, and i saw

families who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms, i was reminded what that would mean if those were my kids. which is why as president we funded an iron dome program to stop those missiles. that's how i've used my travels, when i travel to israel and travel to the region. and the central question at this point is going to be, who's going to be credible to all parties involved? and they can look at my track record, whether it's iran's sanctions, dealing with counter terrorism, supporting democracy. whether it's supporting women's rights, supporting religious minorities and they can say the president of the united states and the united states of america stood on the right side of history. and that kind of credibility is precisely why we've been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right

now. >> what if the prime minister of israel called you on the phone and said, our bombers are on the way we're going to bomb iran. >> let's not go into hypothetic hypotheticals. our relationship with israel, my relationship with the prime minister is not that we would get a call saying the bombers are on the way. let's just -- >> well, let me see -- >> no. >> let's come back to what the president was speaking about, which is what's happening in the world and the president's statement that things are going so well. i look at what's happening around the world, and i see iran four years closer to a bomb. i see the middle east with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult. i see jihadists continue to spread. whether they're rising at just

about the same level is hard to precisely measure, it's clear they're there. i see syria with 30,000 civilians dead. assad still in power. i see our trade deficit with china, larger than it's -- growing larger every year as a matter of fact. i look around the world and i don't feel that -- you see north korea continuing to export their nuclear technology. russia said they're not going to follow a nonnuclear proliferation treaty any more. i see our importance receding in part because of the president, in part because of our withdrawal to our commitment to the military and the way it ought to be. in part because of the turmoil with israel. the president received a letter from 38 democrat senators saying that tensions with israel were a real problem. they asked him, please repair the tensions.

democrat senators, please repair the damage in his own party. >> all right. governor, the problem is, that on a whole range of issues, whether it's the middle east, afghanistan, iraq, whether it's now iran, you've been all over the map. i mean, i'm pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the iranians to enter the nuclear program. just a few years ago, that was something you would never do. just the same way you proposed a timetable in afghanistan. now you're for it? it depends. in the same way you say you would have ended the war in iraq, but recently gave a speech saying we should have 20,000 more folks in there. the same way you said that it

was mission creek to go after gadhafi. when it comes to going after osama bin ladin you said any president would make that call. i said if i had bin ladin in our sights, i would take that shot. you said we shouldn't move heaven and earth for one man, we should ask pakistan permission. after we killed bin ladin i was at ground zero for a memorial and talked to a young woman who was four years old when 9/11 happened, and the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers, saying payton, i love you, and i will always watch over you. and for the next decade she was haunted by that conversation, she said to me, you know by

finally getting bin ladin that brought some closure to me. when we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world. and it tells payton that we did not forget her father. i make that point because that's the kind of clarity of leadership, and those decisions are not always popular. those decisions generally are not poll tested. even some in my own party, including my current vice president had the same critique as you did. what the american people understand is, i look at what we need to get done to keep the american people safe and move our interests forward and i make those decisions. >> okay. >> let's go, and that leads us to the next segment, governor. america's longest war in pakistan. >> you can't have the president just lay out a whole series of

items without giving me a chance to -- >> with respect, sir, you had laid out quite a program. >> that's true. >> we'll agree on that. >> we'll catch up. >> the united states is scheduled to turn over responsibility for security in afghanistan to the afghan government in 2014. at that point we will withdraw our combat troops, leave a smaller force of americans, if i understand our policy, in afghanistan for training purposes. it seems to me the key question here is, what do you do if the deadline arrives and it is obvious the afghans are unable to handle their security? do we still leave? and i believe governor romney, you go first? >> we're going to be finished by 2014, when i'm president, we'll make sure we bring our troops out by 2014. the commanders and generals are on track to do so. we've seen progress over the past several years. the surge has been successful,

and the training program is proceeding at a good pace. they're now a large number of afghan security forces, 350,000 that are ready to step in to provide security and we're going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014, so our troops will come home at that point. i can tell you at the same time, we look at what's happening in pakist pakistan, recognize what's happening in pakistan is going to have a major impact on the success in afghanistan. i say that because i know a lot of people think we should wash our hands and walk away. pakistan's being nice to us, and we should walk away. pakistan is important to the region, the world and us. pakistan has nuclear warheads and they're rushing to build a lot more. they'll have more than great britain in the near future.

they have the accounting network and taliban exist an the within their country. so a pakistan that falls apart would be of extraordinary danger to afghanistan and to us and so we're going to have to remain help envelope encouraging pakistan to move toward a more stable government and rebuild the relationship with us. and that means that our aid that we provide to pakistan is going to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met. for me, i look at this as a need to help move pakistan in the right direction, and also to get afghanistan to be ready, and they will be ready by the end of 2014. >> mr. president? >> when i came into office, we were still bogged down in iraq, and afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. we ended the war in iraq, refocused our attention on afghanistan, we delivered a surge of troops. that was facilitated in part because we had ended the war in iraq.

and we are now in a position where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place. we weren't because people who were responsible for 3,000 american deaths. we decimated al qaeda's poor leadership between afghanistan and pakistan. we then started to build up afghan forces, and we're now in a position where we can transition out. because there's no reason why americans should die when afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country. that transition has to take place in a responsible fashion. we've been there a long time, and we've got to make sure that we and our coalition partners are pulling out responsibly and giving the afghans what they need. what the american people recognize is after a decade of

war, we can now free up some resources to put americans back to work, especially our veterans, rebuilding our roads, bridges, schools. making sure that our veterans are getting the care that they need, when it comes to posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place. i was having lunch with some -- a veteran in minnesota who had been a medic dealing with the most extreme circumstances when he came home and he wanted to become a nurse, he had to start from scratch. what we have said is, let's change those certifications. the first lady's done great work with an organization called joining forces, putting our veterans back to work. as a consequence, veteran's unenemployment is now lower than the general population, it was higher when i came into office. those are the kinds of things we can now do because we're making

that transition in afghanistan. >> let me go to governor romney. you talked about a pakistan and what needs to be done there. general allen our commander in afghanistan says that americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by pakistan. we know that pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch bin ladin. we continue to give pakistan billions of dollars. is it time for us to divorce pakistan? >> no, it's not time to divorce a nation on earth that has 100 nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point. a nation that has serious threats from terror groups within its nation. it's a nation that's not like

others, it doesn't have a civilian leadership. you have the isi there, the organization that is probably the most powerful of the three branches. you have the military and the civilian government. this is a nation, which if it falls apart, if it becomes a failed state there are nuclear weapons there. have you terrorists there who can grab their hands out of those nuclear weapons. this is an important part of the world for us. pakistan is technically an ally and they're not acting like an ally right now. we have some work to do. i don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with pakistan is strained. we had to go into pakistan, we had to go in there to get osama bin ladin, that was the right thing to do. that upset them, there was a great deal of anger before that. we're going to have to work with the people in pakistan to try to help them move to a more responsible course than the one they're on. it's important for them.

it's important for the nuclear weapons, for the success of afghanistan. inside pakistan, you have a large group that are taliban, they're going to come rushing back into afghanistan when we go. it's important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from pakistan. but we do need to make sure that as we send support for them, that this is tied to them making progress on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society. >> let me ask you, governor, we know president obama's position on this one. what is your position on the use of drones? >> well, i believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes. i support that earn tirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology

and believe we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and our friends. let me also note that as i said earlier, we're going to have to do more than going after leaders and killing bad guys, as important as that is, we're going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and islamic extremism. we haven't done that yet. we talk a lot about these things. you look at the record of the last four years and say, is iran closer to a bomb? yes. is the middle east in tumult? yes. is al qaeda on the run, on its heels? no. are israel and the palestinians he closer to reaching a peace agreement? >> no, they haven't had talks in two years. we have not seen the progress we need to have, and i'm convinced with strong leadership and an effort to build a strategy based upon helping these nations reject extremism, we can see the kind of peace and prosperity the

world demands. >> keep in mind our strategy wasn't just going after bin ladin. we created partnerships to go after extremism in somalia, yemen, pakistan. and we've engaged these governments in the kind of reforms that are going to make a difference in people's lives day to day, to make sure their governments aren't corrupt. to make sure they're treating women with the kind of respect and dignity that every nation that succeeds has shown. and to make sure that they've got a free market system that works. so across the board, we are engaging them in building capacity in these countries and we have stood on the side of democracy. one thing i think americans should be proud of, when tune eeshians began to protest, this nati

nation, me, my administration, stood with them earlier than just about any country. in egypt we stood on the side of democracy. in libya we stood on the side of the people. as a consequence, there's no doubt that attitudes about americans have changed. there's always going to be elements in these countries to potentially threaten the united states. we want to shrink those groups and networks and we can do that, we're also growing to have to maintain vigilance when it comes to trifrptd activities. the truth is, al qaeda is much weaker than it was when i came into office. they don't have the same capacities to attack the u.s. homeland and our allies as we did four years ago. >> let's go to the next segment, because it's a very important one. it is the rise of china and future challenges for america. i want to begin this by asking both of you and mr. president, you go first this time.

what do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country? >> well, i think it will continue to be terrorist networks, we had to remain vij lantz as i just said. with respect to china, china's an adversary and also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules. so my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that china plays by the same rulings as everybody else. i know americans had seen jobs being shipped overseas businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade. that's the reason why i set up a trade task force to go after cheaters when it came to international trade.

that's why we brought more sanctions on china. we won almost every case that we filed that's been decided. just recently, steel workers in ohio, throughout the midwest, and pennsylvania. are in a position to sell steel to china because we had that case. they were flooding us with cheap chinese fires and we put a stop to it, as a consequence saved jobs. throughout america. i have to say that governor romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case. said this wouldn't be good for american workers and it would be protectionist. i tell you, those workers don't feel that way. they feel as if they had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously. over the long term in order for us to compete with china, we've also got to make sure that we're taking care of business here at ho

home. if we don't have the best education system in the world, if we don't have the research that will allow us to create great businesses that's how we lose the competition. unfortunately, governor romney's budget and his proposals would not allow us to make those investments. >> first of all, it's not government that makes business successful. it's not government businesses that make businesses grow and higher people. the greatest threat the world faces is a nuclear iran. let's talk about china. china has an interest that's very much like ours. in one respect and that is, they want a stable world this they don't want war, they don't want to see protectionism, they don't want to see the world break out into various chaos, they have to manufacture goods and put to work 20 million people to work coming out of the farms every year. they want the economy to work

and be free and open. we can be a partner with china. we don't have to be an adversary in anyway shape or form. we can work with them, collaborate with them, if they're willing to be responsible. now, they look at us and say, is it a good idea to be with america? how strong are we going to be? how strong is our economy. they look at the fact that we owe them a trillion dollars, and other people 16 trillion, including them. they look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities, a trillion dollars. the secretary of defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. it's not my term, the secretary of defense called them devastating. they look at america's commitments around the world and see what's happening, they say, is america going to be strong? the answer is, yes, if i'm president the country will be very strong. we'll also make sure we have trade relations with china that work for us. i've watched year in and year

out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because china has not played by the same rules. in part by holding down the value of their currency, it holds down the value of their goods and we lose jobs. that's got to end. they're making some progress, they need to make more. on day one, i will label them a currency man i u lar, which allows us too apply tariffs where they're taking jobs. hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods. they have to understand we want to trade with them. we want a world that's stable. we like free enterprise, but you have to play by the rules. >> governor, let me just ask you. if you declare them a currency manipulator on day one, some people say you're just going to start a trade war with china on day one. is that -- isn't there a risk --

>> they sell us this much stuff every year, and we sell them this much stuff every year. it's pretty clear who doesn't want a trade one. we have an enormous trade imbalance with china, it's worse this year than last year, and worse last year than the year before. we have to understand that we can't just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out, we have to say to our friends in china, look, you guys are playing aggressively, we understand it, but this can't keep on going, you can't keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellectual property. counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world, even into the utsd. i was with one company that makes valves in process industries. they said, look, we were having some valves coming in that were broken and we had to repair them under warranty, we looked them up, they had our serial number on them, we noticed there was more than one with that same serial number. there were counterfeit products

being made overseas with the same number as the u.s. company. this can't go on. i want a great relationship with chi china. china can be our partner, but that doesn't mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis. >> governor romney is right. you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas, because you invested in companies that shipped jobs overseas. and that's your right. i mean, that's how our free market works. but i've made a different bet on american workers. if we had taken your advice, governor romney about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from china instead of selling cars to china. if we take your advice with regard to how we change our tax code so companies with profits overseas don't pay u.s. taxes, that's estimated to create 800,000 jobs, the problem is they won't be here, they'll be

in places like china. and if we're not making investments in education and basic research, which is not something the private sector is doing at a sufficient pace right now and has never done. we will lose the lead in things like clean energy technology. now, with respect to what we've done with china already, u.s. exports have doubled since i came into office to china. and the currencies are at their most advantageous point for u.s. exporters since 1993. we absolutely have to make more progress, that's why we're going to keep on pressing. and when it comes to our military and chinese security. part of the reason we were able to pivot to the asia pacific region after having ended the war in iraq, and transitioning out of afghanistan is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. and we believe china can be a

partner, we're also sending a clear signal that america is a pacific power, that we're going to have a presence there. we are working with countries in the region to make sure, for example, that ships can pass through, that commerce continues, and we're organizing trade relations with countries other than china, so that china starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards. that's the kind of leadership we've shown in the region, that's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show. >> i want to take one of those points, again, attacking me is not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs for this country. but the president mentioned the auto industry and somehow i would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere, nothing could be further from the truth. i'm a son of detroit, i was born in detroit. my dad was head of a car company. i like american cars, i would do nothing to hurt the u.s. auto industry. my plan to get the industry on

its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks, it was president bush that wrote the first checks. i disagreed with that. i said, these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy, in that process they can get government help and guaranteed. they need to go through bankruptcy to -- >> governor romney that is not what you said. >> you can take a look at the op ed. >> you did not say you would provide government help. >> i said we would provide guarantees, that is what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, under no circumstances would i do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. the idea that's been suggested that i would liquidate the industry, of course not. of course not. >> let's check the record. >> that's the height of silliness. >> i never said i would want to -- >> the people of detroit don't forget. >> that's why i have the kind of

commitment to make sure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. we in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world, and we're going to. we're going to have to have a president, however, that doesn't think that somehow the government investing in car companies like tesla and fiskar making battery operated cars, this is not research, this is the government investing in companies, investing in solyndra. this is a company, this isn't basic research. i want to invest in research. research is great. providing funding to universities and think tanks. but investing in companies? absolutely not. >> governor -- >> that's the wrong way to go. >> that's -- >> i'm still speaking. i want to make sure we make america more competitive, and we do those things that make america the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators, businesses to grow. your investing in companies doesn't do that, it makes it less likely for them to come here, because the private sector is not going to invest in a

solar company if you're investing in someone els -- >> look, i think anybody out there can check the record. governor romney, you keep on trying to air brush history. you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the u.s. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. you said they could get it in the private marketplace. that wasn't true. they would have gone through -- >> you're wrong, mr. president. >> no, i am not wrong. >> people can look it up, you're right. >> people will look it up. >> more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we're going to have to make some smart choices right now. cutting our education budget, that's not a smart choice, that will not help us compete with china. cutting our investments in research and technology, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. bringing down our deficit by

adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military's not asking for, before we get to the debt that we currently have, that is not going to make us more competitive. those are the kinds of choices american people face right now. shipping jobs overseas, instead of companies that are investing here in the united states. that will not make us more competitive. the one thing i'm absolutely clear about, is that after a decade in which we saw adrift, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing american workers and businesses, we've now begun to make some real progress, we can't go back to the same policies that got us into such difficult in the first place. that's why we had to move forward and not go back. >> i couldn't agree more about going-forward.

but i don't want to go back to the policies of the last four years. 23 million americans still struggling to find a good job. when you came into office, 32 million people on food stamps, today, 47 million people on food stamps, when you came to office, just over $10 trillion in debt, now, $16 trillion in debt, it hasn't worked. you said by now we'd be at 5.4% unemployment, we're 9 million jobs short of that. i've met some of those people. i met them in appleton, wisconsin, i met a young woman in philadelphia who's coming out of college, can't find work. i've been -- ann was with someone just the other day that was just weeping about not being able to get work. it's just a tragedy in a nation so prosperous as ours, that the last four years have been so hard. that's why it's so critical, that we make america once again the most attractive place in the world to start businesses, to build jobs to grow the economy. and that's not going to happen.

by just hiring teachers. i love to -- i love teachers, i'm happy to have states and communities that want to hire teachers do that. i don't like to have the federal government start pushing its weight deeper and deeper into the schools. let the states and localities do that. the federal government didn't hire our teachers. i want to get our private sector growing and i know how to do it. >> i think we all love teachers. thank you so much for a vigorous debate, we have come to the end. it is time for closing statements, i believe you're first, mr. president. >> thank you very much, bob, governor romney and to lynn university. you've now heard three debates, months of campaigning and way too many tv commercials. and now you've got a choice. over the last four years we've made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us